1.In my response to Prejean, I wasn’t defending the inspiration of Scripture. I’ve done that on many other occasions, but that was not my stated aim in response to Prejean. I was merely highlighting the consequences of his position.

Whether the denial of inerrancy is acceptable or not will depend on the theological commitments of the individual. If you’re a theological liberal, then you don’t have a problem with that consequence.

But it’s worth noting that Prejean can only defend Catholicism by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture.

2.Now let’s focus on your own statement. You were referring to the following “argument”:

“WOW, good one Steve. My undergraduate philosophy professor used this (on the first day of class in an introductory course) as a textbook example of sloppy thinking among Christians. Why is the Bible the Word of God? Because it says so. Why trust the Bible? Because God wrote it. How do you know God wrote it? Because the Bible says so...etc...etc...etc..”

This, you say, is how everyone you’ve ever heard defend my position has actually done so.

By way of reply:

1.With all due respect, that tells me that your experience is pretty limited. You haven’t made an effort to acquaint yourself with standard Evangelical apologetics, even though that material is readily available.

2.The “argument” you trot out is a stock caricature of the Christian position by unbelievers. This is the way a militant atheist will typically caricature the Christian argument for the inspiration of Scripture. It’s not how a typical Christian apologist will defend the inspiration of Scripture.

3.Even on its own grounds, let’s consider the argument for a moment.

i) Instead of the Bible, let’s construct a parallel argument: Who wrote A Farewell to Arms? Earnest Hemingway. Why do you think Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms? Because it says so.

Would that be an example of sloppy reasoning? No.

If you were reading A Farewell to Arms, and a friend asked you who wrote it, you would say Earnest Hemingway. And if your friend asked you how you knew that, you would show him your copy of the book, which says that Hemingway was the author.

Is that an unreasonable answer to his question? No. Is it viciously circular to appeal to the title itself? No.

ii) Of course, this is not a compelling argument for authorship. It’s possible that the conventional attribution is false.

But if the publisher gives Hemingway as the author, that is prima facie grounds for believing that Hemingway is the author, is it not?

That, all by itself, is evidence for the authorship of the novel, and you wouldn’t have any reason to question that attribution unless you had evidence to the contrary.

Do you know for a fact that Hemingway wrote the novel because it says so? No. The ascription could be mistaken.

But, absent evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable for you to believe that he wrote it simply because it says so.

And that’s because, to doubt his authorship, you’d have to assume some sort of conspiracy to palm off this novel as the work of Hemingway, even though the publishers were in a position to know better.

Now, conspiracies do occur. But you would need specific evidence to justify your belief in a conspiracy. Absent evidence of a conspiracy, it’s more reasonable to take the ascription at face value.

iii) If God intended to communicate with the human race, don’t you suppose that he would identify himself as the speaker? What would be the point of a divine communication if we didn’t know the source? If this was from God, but we didn’t know it was from God, then we would treat it like any other human communication.

Suppose the Bible never identified itself as the Word of God. Would we pay the same amount of attention to Scripture? No.

If it never said it was the Word of God, we would have no particular reason read it or consider it to be the Word of God. After all, there are far more books in the world than anyone has the time to read. So how do you choose? How do you know what’s important?

iv) Is a divine self-ascription sufficient reason to believe that a document is inspired by God? No.

But a divine self-ascription does make a document a candidate for divine revelation. We will judge it on that basis, whereas—if it never made such a claim in the first place—it wouldn’t even be a candidate for divine revelation.

So the self-witness of Scripture is quite germane to the overall case for the inspiration of Scripture. The self-witness of Scripture is not a sufficient reason to believe that Scripture is what it says it is, but it’s no more unreasonable to take that claim as your starting point than it is to begin with Hemingway as the stated author of A Farewell to Arms.

4.And how do we validate the claim? You say the only argument you’ve heard is a viciously circular argument: the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. But that is not the standard argument for the inspiration of Scripture.

i) One argument is the traditional argument from prophecy. This has been around for centuries. It was used by the subapostolic fathers. Indeed, you find it in Scripture itself.

Have you never heard of this argument before? If so, you really need to get out more often, enlarge your social circle, and do some basic reading in the standard apologetic literature.

ii) Another popular argument of more recent origin is a stepwise argument. It basically goes like this:

a) The NT is a primary source of 1C history. It’s a collection of 1C documents that furnish a historical witness to certain 1C historical events.

As such, we can approach the NT the way we would any analogous source, like Tacitus or Josephus. You don’t have to believe that Tacitus or Josephus is divinely inspired to treat them as historical sources for the period they recount. You merely treat them as fairly reliable historians.

There is a prima facie presumption that they are accurate unless you have evidence to the contrary. They are writing about roughly contemporaneous people, places, and events. So they’re generally in a position to know what they’re talking about, and they generally have no motive to deceive.

b) In addition to the prima facie presumption, there is a lot of corroborative evidence for the NT from archeology.

c) The next step is to say, in light of (a)-(b), that the NT gives us a reliable account of who Jesus is, what he said, and what he did (or will do).

d) The next step is to point out that, among other things, Jesus made statements about the OT. He affirms the inspiration of the OT.

e) I’d add that the OT is a forward-looking book, so at this point you could also insert the argument from prophecy.

f) The final step is to point out that Jesus also affirmed the inspiration of the Apostles—beginning with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Have you never heard of this argument? It’s been around since J. W. Montgomery—if not before—and widely popularized by his successors.

iii) Then there’s the argument from religious experience. Most Christians are not high-powered intellectuals. They don’t believe the Bible because they have a set of arguments for Scripture which they can whip out at a moment’s notice.

But they find the Bible compelling. They simply believe it. They can’t help themselves.

And—what is more—they also find the Bible true to their own experience. As they live according to Scripture, year in and year out, it comes true (so to speak) in their own life-experience—and the experience of fellow believers.

Moving along:

“Strictly speaking, the most serious error here seems to be equivocating the Bible and the Word of God. They are not the same. The Word of God is a person, and the Bible is a written record of that person.”

The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible is, among other things, a record of God’s verbal self-revelation. Indeed, it’s an inspired record of divine revelation. Inspired at two levels: the record itself, as well as the recorded content.

ii) To say the Bible is a written record of Jesus is a considerable overstatement. The Bible contains many passages that are not a record of who Jesus is, or said, or did. Although the Bible is Christologically structured, the Bible is not all about Jesus all of the time. Do you think that Exod 21-22 is specifically about Jesus? Do you think that Deut 19-24 is specifically about Jesus?

There’s a mock piety, of the Harold Camping variety, that sees Jesus in every verse of Scripture. But this isn’t a properly Christ-honoring approach to Scripture. Every bush is not a burning bush. Sometimes a bush is just a bush.

With all due respect, had I known that you had a complex that motivates you to attempt to thrash every comment in every combox on every Catholic or Orthodox blog, I would have been a lot more careful in my criticism, maybe even serious. My comments were meant to be extremely tongue-in-cheek. As for my ineptitude and ignorance of protestant methodology, I assure you that I have done my fair share of reading and even defended the position you hold for a number of years. To be honest, I do not have the free time that you obviously do to seriously engage your post at the moment, and I suspect that any attempt to do so will not bear any more fruit than your exchanges as of late. With that, I humbly bow out.

Joseph said:---As for my ineptitude and ignorance of protestant methodology, I assure you that I have done my fair share of reading and even defended the position you hold for a number of years.---

I, for one, would be more "assured" of the above were your responses actually "careful" or "serious" instead of "extremely tongue-in-cheek." In other words, you can say that you used to hold Protestant views, but when you do not even bother to present them accurately how can we rely on your assurance?

Strange. I found Steve's post to be interesting, informative, and edifying. Almost as though he responded to your comment because he thought the opportunity to address these issues would be edifying to his readers.

So it's beyond me to figure out what would motivate you to this kind of pseudo-psychoanalysis.

Well, it's not really beyond me. It made a good emotional dismissal, without requiring any sort of substance. (Your lack of free time to seriously engage his post is understandable; you are the steward of your own time.)

The problem is, you said something terribly ignorant: "how everyone I've ever heard defend your position has actually done so." I've seen many people who really do think that's what we argue--they really are that unfamiliar with the issues. You said it as though you meant it--intensifying it three times! (everyone, ever, actually) OK, so you say that it was extremely tongue-in-cheek. That you aren't really ignorant of Protestant methodology--you've studied it and you even used to argue it.

Then I would love to see you explain what you did mean by your "tongue-in-cheek" comment that you apparently knew wasn't true. That when you used to argue "Steve's position", you argued it the way you were caricaturing? That you used to argue it the way Steve just did, but you decided to say that you'd never encountered such arguments to, uh, make a point? What point?

I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how you weren't either speaking from ignorance, or lying. Could you enlighten us?

I think we may be giving Joseph too much credit here. By failing to engage a single one of Steve's points, it's evident he's lost the debate and is making a beeline for the exit. That's why he's responded the way he has.

No. Actually, the only computer access I have is at work. Forced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders, I'll opt for the former. In case you didn't catch it, I tried to apologize to Steve for not being more candid from the get-go.

Eh? You tried to apologize for not being more candid? Are you referring to the first sentence in your other comment? "...I would have been a lot more careful..." It's the only thing I can see in your first comment that seems to match.

Joseph, I have a difficult time recognizing an apology in there. That sentence started off with "had I known that you had a complex that motivates you to attempt to thrash every comment in every combox on every Catholic or Orthodox blog". Is that apologetic, in your mind? To me, it seems more defensive, with a bit of lashing out. I don't know, I can't read your mind. But I can tell you that if you're ever interested in making a genuine apology, you can't start off that way. (Imagine saying something similar to introduce an apology to your wife!)

So, if you were intending a genuine apology, the way you went about it shrouded it in fog.

As for your computer situation: I'll say again that you're the steward of your own time, and I for one am not going to hold it against you if you don't respond. Particularly if it's an issue of not having computer access except at work.

The problem is not in what you didn't say, but in what you did say. You did not bow out humbly; you bowed out with a parting shot, and with a half-hearted attempt to defend yourself by saying you've actually defended the position Steve is arguing. And as I pointed out, it's rather difficult to reconcile such a claim with your prior strong assertion that everyone you've ever seen actually defend Steve's position does it in the way you were "trotting out".

I think I'm being reasonable. You may disagree. Now, you're welcome to try to clear it up, if you care to. If you have time. Or you can leave it muddled as it is. I'm just saying that it is in quite a muddle of your own making.

No. Actually, the only computer access I have is at work. Forced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders, I'll opt for the former. In case you didn't catch it, I tried to apologize to Steve for not being more candid from the get-go.

I'll just note that if Joseph truly is "[f]orced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders," then I wonder how he finds the time to keep reading and commenting in the combox? Just a thought.

Patrick: Reading blogs on breaks is easy. Brief comments are easy. I've done it myself. Any kind of thorough interaction is harder.

"Goodness, Tim", you may ask, "why are you defending him?" I might answer, "Pragmatically, if you give someone something easy to respond to, it gives them an excuse to avoid addressing more substantive points. More generally, I don't like unfair arguments, period."

I should say, though, that Joseph cast it in such stark, black-and-white terms ("forced to choose between...") that I was only taking him at his word and giving him as much wiggle room as he seemed to allow himself to have.

"Instead of the Bible, let’s construct a parallel argument: Who wrote A Farewell to Arms? Earnest Hemingway. Why do you think Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms? Because it says so. Would that be an example of sloppy reasoning? No."

Yes, it would. I'm assuming that by "it", you mean the book that I'm holding at present; if that's the case, I don't think Hemingway wrote a Farewell to Arms "because it says so". The book is just an artefact; it would still be the same text even without any details about the author, and the name of the author is not integral to the text.

At root, the reason that I think that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms is because of the quite large amount of supporting evidence. There are books and other literary works which have less supporting evidence - for example, the plays of Shakespeare - but in the main historical and literary analysis demonstrates that this is the case.

"If you were reading A Farewell to Arms, and a friend asked you who wrote it, you would say Earnest Hemingway. And if your friend asked you how you knew that, you would show him your copy of the book, which says that Hemingway was the author."

No I wouldn't, as can be demonstrated easily by positing that a text that has no author details. The proof would be the supporting evidence referred to earlier.

"Is it viciously circular to appeal to the title itself? No."

It is circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. Your friend would be perfectly justified in asking how you know the cover is correct in ascribing authorship to Hemingway; and exactly the same argument can be extended to the Bible. The difference is that in the case of the authorship of A Farewell to Arms, there is a large amount of evidence that can be used to support the ascription, but in the case of the authorship of the Bible, there is absolutely none.

"Of course, this is not a compelling argument for authorship. It’s possible that the conventional attribution is false. But if the publisher gives Hemingway as the author, that is prima facie grounds for believing that Hemingway is the author, is it not?"

Yes, but that's because the publisher is not the text of the book, or the copy of the book itself; the publishing company is a separate source of evidence in itself. You will notice that in book catalogues, the author of the Bible is not listed as "God"; that's partly because publishers - even Christian publishers - cannot in good faith ascribe authorship to "God".

"That, all by itself, is evidence for the authorship of the novel, and you wouldn’t have any reason to question that attribution unless you had evidence to the contrary."

“Yes, it would. I'm assuming that by "it", you mean the book that I'm holding at present; if that's the case, I don't think Hemingway wrote a Farewell to Arms ‘because it says so’. The book is just an artefact; it would still be the same text even without any details about the author, and the name of the author is not integral to the text.”

Whether the author’s name is “integral to the text” is irrelevant to the question of whether I am prima facie justified in believing the ascription absent evidence to the contrary.

“At root, the reason that I think that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms is because of the quite large amount of supporting evidence. There are books and other literary works which have less supporting evidence - for example, the plays of Shakespeare - but in the main historical and literary analysis demonstrates that this is the case.”

If you want to develop your argument in that direction, then I can develop a parallel argument based on corroborative evidence for Scripture.

“No I wouldn't, as can be demonstrated easily by positing that a text that has no author details.”

How is that supposed to be analogous? If a text is anonymous, then absent addition information, I have no opinion regarding authorship. That is hardly analogous to a text that is not anonymous.

“The proof would be the supporting evidence referred to earlier.”

If you push this too far, it will push you into a vicious regress, for you continue to rely on second-hand testimony every step of the way.

“It is circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. Your friend would be perfectly justified in asking how you know the cover is correct in ascribing authorship to Hemingway; and exactly the same argument can be extended to the Bible.”

No, he would not be justified. That would be a case of irrational scepticism. Indeed, feigning disbelief.

One of your problems is that you fail to distinguish between knowledge and justified belief. Is my belief in other minds, the external world, and the reality of the past unwarranted unless I can provide an apodictic proof for these beliefs? No.

There are degrees of belief, ranging along of relative continuum of certainty or uncertainty. A belief can be mistaken and justified at the same time.

“The difference is that in the case of the authorship of A Farewell to Arms, there is a large amount of evidence that can be used to support the ascription, but in the case of the authorship of the Bible, there is absolutely none.”

Now you’re exhibiting your ignorance. What evangelical scholars have you studied on the subject?

“Yes, but that's because the publisher is not the text of the book, or the copy of the book itself; the publishing company is a separate source of evidence in itself.”

Once again, if you wish to develop your argument in that direction, then I can develop a parallel argument for the Bible. There are many levels of attestation.

“You will notice that in book catalogues, the author of the Bible is not listed as ‘God’; that's partly because publishers - even Christian publishers - cannot in good faith ascribe authorship to ‘God’.”

"Your argument is fallacious; secondary sources are entirely acceptable in building a case for authorship, and don't constitute a 'vicious regress'."

I'm merely answering you on your own grounds. When you say it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover, you are treating testimony as inherently dubious.

To then appeal to additional testimony to substantiate the original testimonial claim is viciously regressive.

Corroborative testimony is only valid if you accept the prima facie credibility of testimony in the first place.

Oh, and there's tons of Evangelical scholarship amassing evidence for the historicity of Scripture.

"I'm merely answering you on your own grounds. When you say it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover, you are treating testimony as inherently dubious."

I fail to see how you are answering me "on my own grounds". At no point did I say that it is irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover. This is something that you said in your response to my initial comment, and it is an incorrect characterisation of my position.

My position is as follows: your friend would be justified in asking how you know that A Farewell To Arms was in fact written by Ernest Hemingway. The cover of the book may say so, but the cover of "The Running Man" says that it was written by Richard Bachman - when it was in fact written by Stephen King.

"To then appeal to additional testimony to substantiate the original testimonial claim is viciously regressive."

It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it.

The question then is, what else can your friend refer to in order to increase his/her confidence in the authorship of A Farewell to Arms? Not the text itself, but other sources, which might be primary sources (the original manuscript, Hemingway memooirs talking about writing the book, reports by friends or colleagues, etc) or secondary sources (academic analysis of the text or history of the text, etc) or even tertiary sources (Library of Congress, etc). This does not in any sense constitute a "vicious regress" - it is standard historical practice.

"Oh, and there's tons of Evangelical scholarship amassing evidence for the historicity of Scripture."

I know, and I am not in this case questioning the historicity of Scripture. The historicity of Scripture, however, does not have much to do with whether the Bible is the Word of God. Such an argument merely establishes that the Bible is a useful historical document - just as with Tacitus and Josephus.

You said, "It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it."

So basically, you're trying to make the point that divine self-ascription is not sufficient reason to believe that a document is inspired by God?

“I fail to see how you are answering me "on my own grounds". At no point did I say that it is irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover. This is something that you said in your response to my initial comment, and it is an incorrect characterisation of my position.”

You admitted that, from your viewpoint, it would be viciously “circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover.”

So are you now saying that a viciously argument is a rational argument?

“My position is as follows: your friend would be justified in asking how you know that A Farewell To Arms was in fact written by Ernest Hemingway. The cover of the book may say so, but the cover of ‘The Running Man’ says that it was written by Richard Bachman - when it was in fact written by Stephen King.”

Which, as I pointed out before, involves the distinction between knowledge and prima facie justification.

“It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it.”

No, you’re acting as if all probabilities were equiprobable. The fact that we could possible be mistaken about something doesn’t mean that a posture of Cartesian doubt or default scepticism is just as rationale as qualified belief. No one lives that way because no one is able to live that way.

“The question then is, what else can your friend refer to in order to increase his/her confidence in the authorship of A Farewell to Arms? Not the text itself, but other sources, which might be primary sources (the original manuscript, Hemingway memooirs talking about writing the book, reports by friends or colleagues, etc) or secondary sources (academic analysis of the text or history of the text, etc) or even tertiary sources (Library of Congress, etc). This does not in any sense constitute a ‘vicious regress’ - it is standard historical practice.”

I don’t object to the history practice. It’s your preliminary scepticism that undermines the historical practice. If you make it a point to automatically question testimony, then all you’re doing here is to add one questionable witness to another.

“I know, and I am not in this case questioning the historicity of Scripture. The historicity of Scripture, however, does not have much to do with whether the Bible is the Word of God.”

In various respects, it has a lot to do with it, but to confine ourselves to the immediate subject of this thread, it corroborates the attestation of authorship.

"You admitted that, from your viewpoint, it would be viciously circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. So are you now saying that a viciously argument is a rational argument?"

Clearly I didn't explain myself very well. What I said initially was that it would be circular if you used a copy of a book to try to prove the authorship of the same book, which should be self-evident. Proving the authorship is different to merely asserting the authorship - pointing to the cover would merely be asserting authorship, not proving it.

You then accused me of saying that "it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover", whereas in fact I said no such thing at any point. (I should also point out that a rational argument can be circular, although you appear to believe differently. I'm not sure why.)

Try and focus on the actual properties of the book you are holding. It's not "the book" that says that Hemingway wrote AFTA - it's the publisher who put the name on the cover, and one is right to have a certain level of trust in the publisher, for a variety of reasons.

The text of AFTA itself proves nothing about the authorship - the name of the author is not contained definitively within the text. The text of the novel is not the same as the book you are holding - the book contains many elements that are not text, such as metadata (author name, publication date, etc) and marketing (advance publicity for other books).

The reason that you trust that Hemingway wrote the AFTA is because an external authority - the publisher - asserts it, and you have a certain level of trust that the publisher is telling you the truth. (Sometimes publishers don't tell the truth, however, and so this trust is never 100%, and it is entirely rational to question their accuracy.)

So I will return to one of my original points. The publishers of the Bible - even the Christian publishers - don't assert that the author of the Bible is "God". Many of the separate books of the Bible don't assert that the author of that book is "God". There is no external authority (as far as I'm aware) that confirms that the author of the Bible is "God".

So how exactly does your argument differ from the one that you referred to as the "stock caricature" of the Christian position?u